Below is my column in the New York Post on the closing arguments scheduled for today in the trial of former President Donald Trump. The column explores the key elements for a closing to bring clarity to the chaos of Judge Juan Merchan’s courtroom.
Here is the column:
With the closing arguments set for Tuesday in the trial of former president Donald Trump, defense counsel are in a rather curious position.
There is still debate among legal experts as to the specific crime that District Attorney Alvin Bragg is alleging.
Trump’s lawyers are defending a former president who is charged under a state misdemeanor which died years ago under the statute of limitations. It was then zapped back into life in the form of roughly three dozen felonies by claiming that bookkeeping violations — allegedly hiding payments to Stormy Daniels to ensure her silence about a supposed affair with Trump — were committed to hide another crime.
But what is that second crime?
Even liberal legal analysts admitted that they could not figure out what was being alleged in Bragg’s indictment. Now, after weeks of trial, the situation has changed little.
Originally, Bragg referenced four possible crimes, though he is now claiming three: a tax violation or either a state or federal campaign financing violation. The last crime is particularly controversial because Bragg has no authority to enforce federal law and the Justice Department declined any criminal charge. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) did not even find grounds for a civil fine.
Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is. The jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes were being concealed and Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous verdict.
The jury has been given little substantive information on these crimes, and Merchan has denied a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal election violation.
This case should have been dismissed for lack of evidence or a cognizable crime. The jury will be reminded that the burden is on the government, not the defense.
However, the presumption of innocence is often hard to discern in criminal cases. Most jurors believe that clients are sitting behind the defense table for a reason. That is why many prosecution offices have conviction rates in the 80%-90% range.
That presumption is even more difficult to discern when the defendant is named Trump and the jury sits in Manhattan.
Three-legged Stool
A classic closing pitch by lawyers is to use a physical object like a three-legged stool. If any leg is missing, the stool collapses.
In this case, the government needs to show that there was a falsification of business records, that the records were falsified to conceal another crime and that Donald Trump had the specific intent to use such “unlawful means” to influence the election.
Even a cursory review of the evidence shows this case does not have a leg to stand on.
The First Leg: Falsification of Records
The dead misdemeanor that is the foundation for this entire prosecution requires the falsification of business records. It is not clear that there was such falsification or that Trump has any knowledge or role in any falsification.
Witnesses testified that Trump would sign checks prepared by others and that the specific checks in this case were signed while Trump was serving as president. Some of these checks, labeled “legal expenses,” were allegedly for attorney Michael Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels.
Most importantly, Jeffrey McConney, the Trump Organization’s retired controller and senior vice-president, testified that it was not Trump who designated these payments as “legal expenses.” Rather, the corporation used an “antiquated” drop-down menu where any payments to lawyers were designated “legal expenses.” There is a plausible reason why payments to an attorney were listed as legal expenses.
The government also cites the designation of payments to Cohen as part of his “retainer,” which included reimbursement for the payment of the Daniels non-disclosure agreement. However, that designation was the result of discussions between Cohen and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, who is sitting in a jail cell in New York City. The government could have called Weisselberg, but did not.
The government has made a big deal over the fact that retainer agreements are supposed to have written contracts. However, that was the failure of Cohen, who was later disbarred as an attorney.
For a businessman like Weisselberg, monthly payments to an attorney could have seemed perfectly logical. Once again, there was no evidence that Trump knew of how the payments were denoted.
The Second Leg: The Secondary Crime
The government must also show that any falsification was done to further or conceal another crime.
This is where the defense needs to bring greater clarity to its own narrative. Trump’s team needs to drive home that a non-disclosure agreement is common in political, business and entertainment circles. The payment of money to quash a story before an election is neither unlawful nor unusual.
Indeed, Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels’ attorney, described the NDA as routine and said that it was not hush money but a simple contractual transaction: “It wasn’t a payoff. It wasn’t hush money. It was consideration.”
This is where the testimony of David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Inquirer, was particularly damaging to the government.
Pecker detailed how killing such stories was a common practice at the National Inquirer and that he had done so for Trump for over a decade before he ran for president. He also killed stories for an impressive list of other celebrities, including Tiger Woods, Mark Wahlberg, Rahm Emanuel and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Merchan has allowed the jury to repeatedly hear of “election violations,” while blocking a legal expert to explain that there is no federal election law violation. The payment of hush money is not a campaign contribution and, again, the federal government not only declined to bring any criminal charge, but found no basis for even a civil fine.
Had he been allowed to testify, Bradley Smith, the former Federal Election Commission (FEC) chairman, would have explained that, even if it were a campaign contribution, it would not have been needed to be filed until after the election — demolishing the notion that this was an effort to influence an election that would have run before any filing had to be made.
The defense has to hammer away on the fact that no one has testified that it was a federal campaign violation.
Various witnesses, including former Trump aide Hope Hicks, testified that Trump was motivated to protect his family from embarrassment. She recounted how Trump even “wanted me to make sure the newspapers weren’t delivered to their residence that morning.”
Pecker testified that he previously killed stories about Trump going back over a decade. That included stories that were demonstrably untrue, such as a claim of a doorman that he fathered a child out of wedlock.
In addition to being a married man, Trump was the host of a major television program subject to a scandal clause. He was also an international businessman. Given all of those interests, it is impossible to claim absolutely that the campaign was the reason for the NDA, which was chump change for a billionaire.
The Third Leg: Criminal intent
The government spent considerable time proving facts not in dispute. There is no dispute that there was a NDA or that Trump signed checks on these payments. It is like repeatedly telling a court that a driver drove 55 miles an hour down a highway and elected to change lanes with a signal. The intent is to convince the jury that somehow proving that an NDA was paid and that an affair occurred is proof of an offense. It is not.
The supervisor in charge of processing payments said that permission to cut Cohen’s checks came not from Trump, but from Weisselberg and McConney. Trump’s White House secretary, Madeleine Westerhout, testified that it was common for Trump to sign checks in the White House without reviewing them.
The entire basis for the alleged criminal intent is Michael Cohen, a disbarred lawyer and serial perjurer.
Yet even Cohen did not offer a clear basis for showing a criminal intent to use unlawful means to influence the election.
Everything Cohen described could be true and only show a desire to kill an embarrassing story before an election — again, not a crime.
Cohen described the mechanics on the payments, but the only person who discussed these payments in detail with Cohen was Weisselberg.
Even liberal experts on CNN admitted that Cohen was trashed on the stand. The only crime that was clearly established in this trial was the grand larceny that Cohen admitted to under oath (after the statute of limitations had run out). Cohen said that he stole tens of thousands from the Trump corporation, a crime far more serious than the dead misdemeanor or even the felonies alleged against Trump.
However, the most significant testimony by Cohen may be his latest alleged perjury in front of the jury.
Many of us guffawed when Cohen claimed that he secretly taped Trump to protect him and keep Pecker honest. No one can explain how that could possibly be true. If it were, he would have told Trump. There is nothing in the call that would have any impact on Pecker, and Cohen admitted to regularly taping others without telling them.
Another alleged perjury came with the key telephone call in which Cohen claimed Trump was informed that the Daniels deal was concluded. The defense showed that that 96-second-long call was to Trump’s bodyguard, Keith Schiller, in late October 2016. It was preceded and followed by text messages that clearly shows that the conversation was about a teenager harassing Cohen, not the NDA.
Other witnesses trashed Cohen as unprofessional, prone to exaggeration, bitter against Trump, at times suicidal over being denied positions like attorney general and simply “a jerk.” Hope Hicks, a former aide to Trump, said that Cohen “used to like to call himself Mister Fix It, but it was only because he first broke it.”
Those were the government’s witnesses.
Cohen’s lack of credibility and his admitted financial interest in attacking Trump only highlight again the absence of Weisselberg, whom Cohen references repeatedly as the key person making decisions on how these payments were made and described.
If what Cohen said was true, corroboration was sitting a car ride away in Rikers Island. Traffic may be bad but it is not that bad. The only reason not to call Weisselberg was that he would contradict Cohen.
The prosecution preferred to use a serial perjurer who roughly half of the country views as dishonest as almost the entirety of their case. Even beyond Weisselberg, there is no corroboration for Cohen’s vague allegations on the record.
In the end, this three-legged stool is the very thing that all of us must stand on when accused. Who on the jury would want to stand on this stool with their own liberty at stake?
In the end, the defense needs to be honest with these jurors. The question is whether hatred for this man is enough to ignore the obvious injustice in this case. They may have come to this case with little doubt about Donald Trump, but the question is whether there is not any reasonable doubt about the crimes alleged against him.
In the end, we are all standing on that wobbly stool when the government seeks to convict people without evidence or even a clear crime. If we allow a conviction, it is more than a stool that will collapse in this Manhattan courtroom.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
The truth does not matter to Democrats. They win by lying, by colluding, by the MSM carrying their dirty water. In the case of Bragg, he doesnt need a charge against Trump. All he and the fake judge sought to create were yet more talking points just like Hillary did with russia, Russia, RUSSIA
Rich Lowry nails it
The Tawdriest Political Dirty Trick
That a conviction will be vulnerable to getting overturned on appeal doesn’t help Trump any.
As long as Democrats have their “convicted felon” label on Trump for the duration of 2024, it doesn’t matter that there may eventually be a superseding “reversed on appeal” label in 2025 or 2026, when this election will have been long decided.
We don’t know what political effect Trump’s being dubbed a “convicted felon” will have. I’d guess little or none. The trial hasn’t exactly captured the public imagination thus far. It’s not the trial of the century; in fact, it’s barely been the trial of this year or month.
All things considered, though, if you’re the Trump team, you’d rather not find out what the consequences of a guilty verdict are. Certainly, Trump’s adversaries will make ample use of his new status as convicted felon, and journalists will ask every Republican they can find how they can possibly justify supporting a convicted Trump.
And so Alvin Bragg will have served his purpose and can go back to the serious business of not prosecuting street crime.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/the-tawdriest-political-dirty-trick/
“… We don’t know what political effect Trump’s being dubbed a “convicted felon” will have. …”
The effect is ‘Election Interference’ via Lawfair and Gross-Media Slander. To Wit all of the Law Suits (The totality of Lawfair) brought against Trump (GA. Mar-A-Lago, NYC) have had the “political effect” desired by the Perpetrators (Biden/Clinton/DNC, DOJ, etc. …).
And at some point there is only so much Someone can take. That Someone will have his turn at retribution after the Election.
God is Coming them.
“As long as Democrats have their “convicted felon” label on Trump for the duration of 2024,…”
It has already shown to have backfired on the Dems, Trump’s Brooklyn NY rally was the most recent evidence of the change from Dem to Trump.
It is trending across the Nation, WHY? because Orange Prisoner Jumpsuits and Donald Trump’s Orange Hair are now one in the same.
Black voters have see the effect of Lawfair persecution and have identified that Trump is going through the same thing.
Thus Black Voters have now come to the conclusion that Orange is the new; Red, White, and Blue 🇺🇸
Because someone they know, or are closely related to, or have seen it on the nightly news is wearing an Orange Jumpsuit.
They know Lawfair and ‘THE MAN’ when They see it. Even if the Dems win, The Democrats are going to live-to-regret they had ever went down this road.
Key Statistics:
Percent of Black Americans in the general U.S. population: 13% +
Percent of people in prison or jail who are Black: 37% +
Prison incarceration rate for Native people vs nation as a whole: 763 vs. 350 per 100,000
Percent of people serving life, life without parole, or “virtual life” sentences who are Black: 48% +
Arrest rate for Black vs white Americans: 6,109 vs. 2,795 per 100,000 +
Number of arrests of Black Americans in 2018: 2.8 million +
Percent of people on probation or parole who are Black: 30% +
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/race_and_ethnicity/
Those statistics are bullsh*t, because they leave out the only important ones: What percentage of blacks and of whites commit crimes; what percentage of black criminals and white criminals are arrested. Yes, 37% of people in prison, and nearly 50% of those serving the most severe sentences are black; but what percentage should be? What makes you think these percentages are too high rather than too low or just right? The fact is that, per 1000, far more blacks than whites commit crimes, so it’s not at all surprising that far more blacks than whites are arrested and serve time. It doesn’t matter WHY this is so; what matters is that it IS so, and the evidence that it is so is overwhelming and irrefutable. Half those serving the most serious sentences are black because half of the serious crimes committed in America are committed by blacks. So there is no evidence for racism or injustice.
The Bell curve
Why is it that as we watch this effort to interfere in an election occur right infront of our eyes,
and after the collusion delusion story and the hunter Biden laptop nonsense,
Why is it that we shoudl trust these people not to commit election fraud ?
Despicable destruction of American jurisprudence.
Isn’t the Dem campaign event with De Niro across the street from the NY courthouse an attempt at jury tampering? At the very least, it has the appearance of trying to influence the outcome of a lawsuit that is already hopelessly politicized. It’s a part of Biden’s lawfare project, DOJ employee Colangelo is temporarily assisting Bragg, and Judge Merchan appears to be favoring the prosecution based on the sustain/over rule ratio. The case, which should never have seen the light of day, should be dismissed.
Biden’s Presidency in less than 60 seconds
US pier constructed off Gaza has broken apart
– CNN
So we clearly have Freisler before our own eyes all along, and yet, JT manages to split the hair about some “legal” nuances.
Why don’t you cough it up, JT?
https://youtu.be/ED1YDmLpvkQ
Jonathan: You should feel pretty good about now. Outside the courtroom this morning DJT read from your column about your “Three-legged Stool” defense–your claim that “this case does not have a a leg to stand on”. DJT loves you for that.
And DJT was apparently not briefed by his lawyers on how criminal trials are handled in NY. DJT posted this: “Why is the corrupt government allowed to make the final argument in the case against me? Why can’t the defense go last?” FACT CHECK: Sorry, Donald, but in every criminal trial in NY the prosecution goes last. No exceptions, not even for you!
More on Todd Blanche’s closing but I have to now rush to the airport. Will be back latter with an update.
@Dennis McIntyre,
It seems professor Turley is now fully aware that Trump reads his columns. That’s a bigger incentive to write more Trump appealing content to ease his concerns about possibly being found guilty.
At least wait more than 7 minutes to reply to your own comment, otherwise someone might accuse you of using sock puppets to troll for pay by your DNC handlers
sheesh
@CommitToHonestDiscussion,
I’m not Dennis McIntyre.
@CommitToHonestDiscussion,
I am CommitToHonestDissembling
OTOH, you are CommitToHonestDiscussion and all of your many other Gainesville sock puppets
Who cares? This blog is one big phlegm stream.
That appears to be true, you are a tiny bit smarter, but not much.
Comrade Dumba–, you did not answer the question: Why?
_________________________________________________________________
Start here, you lying cheating ——-! Why is a corrupt government allowed to “market” or time its “fake” and fraudulent trial in an election year—10 or 15 years after events that were actually not criminal took place—10 or 15 years after the statute of limitations ran out? Why is a corrupt president allowed to smear his opponent through contrived lawfare and compel him to wait until after the election for appeals that will inevitably extirpate the entire case? Why is a corrupt “fake” president allowed to indict his opponent, who very well may beat him, in the absence of further election fraud and cheating?
If you communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) are bound and determined to lie and cheat, the process should be amenable and flexible to accommodate your abject and vile legal, moral, and ethical degeneracy.
____________________________________________________
“Why is the corrupt government allowed to make the final argument in the case against me?”
“Why can’t the defense go last?”
– Real President Donald J. Trump
No rush.
Dennis, I’m not surprised you are trying to bury the continuing dark cloud over perpetually overturned Jack Smith.
His stunt asking for a gag order to give the talking heads content over the long weekend, was slapped down by an honest Judge Cannon. She allowed him to save face, by using the legal fig leaf of not giving the Trump team enough time to respond. We will see if Smith will ask again for another dose off humiliation.
I know it is hard to believe given what we have seen in the past year, but gagging the defendant in a criminal trial is unconstitutional prior restraint.
If they actually violate the law, they can be charged – When they violate the law, not before.
This has been the norm – until the courts started gagging republicans.
Let’s hope one day soon YOU are targeted and falsely prosecuted.
In fact, I think I will charge that YOU raped me 30 years ago.
Believe all women, right?
Now YOU must defend your self.
Good luck jerk.
DM – I do not know the rules in NY – and I doubt you do either. But the NORM throughout the country is for the defense to go last.
The prosecution opens first, the prosecution presents their case first and the prosecution closes first.
That is specifically because there is a presumption of innocence.
Are you really trying to make NY look even worse?
Storyline:
A man is criminally prosecuted and put on trial for an unknown crime in a nightmarish and absurd legal system. It delves into themes of guilt, bureaucracy, and the individual’s struggle against an incomprehensible and oppressive society.
Is thus the Donald J. Trump trial? Well, it could be. But it’s the storyline of Frank Kafka’s novel, “The Trial,” written between 1914 and 1915.
Plural – his trials, both civil and criminal. The whole sh*t show is def Kafkaesque. The loser: America.
But it could yet result in something good. Trump says he’s one indictment away from being elected POTUS. I think he underestimates his odds. This absurd lawfare persecution by the blob has won a lot of people to his side, especially minorities who see a kindred spirit.
In the mean time, Trump rallies like in NJ and S. Bronx, and hopefully next in Chicago, will be fun-loving affairs with a lot of joy and love to go around. The FJB corpse will be unable to pull 23 audience members on a good day, even if they’re paid, and there will be no fun, only misery and envy. There is no joy on that side of the aisle. All they know is weeping and gnashing of teeth. I feel sorry for them.
“The Trial,”
Great reference.
That drama of the absurd, imported from Germany, has become the courtroom of the absurd.
You cannot find meaning or sense in the absurd. You can only ask what it’s intended to achieve.
It looks like the prosecution’s closing arguments involve a lot of detail and rebuttals to the defense’s claims.
They have made several good points that may resonate with the jury.
+100
This is not a debate, The issue here is not about scoring points, or who do you think is a good person or a bad one.
All that is supposed to go to the jury is
Here is the crime charged.
Here are the elements of that crime:
x
y
z
All elements must have evidence that proves them beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury is to disregard fur the purposes of establishing the elements of the crime all testimony that does not directly prove elements of the charged crime.
Other evidence can be used to weight the credibility of witnesses, but if it does not pertain to an element of the crime charged it otherwise can not be considered.
Any allegations or evidence of any crimes not charged must be disregarded.
That is the requirements of the rule of law.
That is the requirements of our constitution.
“Mr. Trump chose Mr. Cohen for the same qualities his attorneys now urge you to reject.”
Cohen’s top quality was loyalty to his former boss, Steinglass said. Cohen was “drawn to the defendant like a moth to a flame, and he wasn’t the only one. David Pecker saw Mr. Trump as a mentor; Mr. Trump saw David Pecker as a useful tool.”
This is the problem trying to discredit Cohen. Cohen was hired precisely because Trump wanted him to lie for him. Trump values that quality.
How many lawyers do you suppose the Trump Companies employ? Do you truly believe that Donald Trump was Cohens pal and confident or just another person under his companies umbrella? It doesn’t seem that Trump was very impressed with his performance. Real estate Developers hire the lawyers that produce what they want, if not they go elsewhere.
Do you think that is an argument ?
I would note that Trump did NOT hire Cohen to lie for him.
There is litterally no evidence of that and remarks like that by the prosecution should have been struck fro the closing.
Trump did Hire Cohen to fix problems for him. Just as Hillary Clinton hired Marc Elias, and John Sussman.
But lets assume of the sake of argument that Trump hired Cohen specifically to lie for him.
That does not change the fact that he is a liar who can not be trusted.
I personally dop not give a schiff about Cohen or his testimony.
There is no case here – with or without Cohen.
Everything the prosecution claims occurred – is LEGAL.
Hush Money, payments for NDA’s are legal. They are not campaign contributions – and even if they were – they are LEGAL.
Candidates can spend as much of their own money on a campaign as they want and they need not disclose it.
If that were not true – campaign finance laws would violate the first amendment. Tis is a long decided issue by the supreme court – before Trump dreamed of politics.
Calling payment for gas, an auto expense or a travel expense in your books is legal.
Calling payment for an NDA a legal expense or a retainer, or a reimbursement, is LEGAL.
I would further note there is not even a legal requirement that Trump maintain the records that are allegedly fraudulent.
You are required by law to fill out your tax return correctly. What records you use to do so are your own business.
if an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared /nicolo machiavelli
Many commentators are using this case to imply that it’s illegal for a candidate (campaign) to hide derrogatory information from the electorate. This is a legitimate question — particularly when you consider how the Russian people just handed Vladimir Putin another 6-year term, under circumstances where publishing derrogatory information about him during the campaign could easily put a target on your back in a police/mafia state. Concealing negative information from the voters that could influence their decision — essentially deceptive cover-ups — is not particularly healthy for democracy. It is insulting to the voters for a campaign to think they can win by duping the public.
That said, how can we take as serious the drive to keep campaigns honest and candid when the tripwire for illegality requires the exchange of money, and the deceptive reporting of said expenditures to the FEC? When Hunter’s laptop was revealed by the NY Post 3 weeks before the 2020 election, Mike Morrell and Tony Blinken knew better than to spend money pushing out a counter-narrative (altho a CIA employee may have broken the law helping recruit the 51 co-signers of “the letter”). Together with sympathetic media, they unleashed a massive con job on the voters.
If free and fair elections are defined as being conducted in an infospace free of that that type of manipulative deception (cover-ups), then we have some work ahead to harmonize public fraud law with 1A, essentially making sure that government prosecution plays no part in deterrence, while beefing up defamation-like civil lawsuits as a Constitutional mode of deterrence. The goal should be a system where power to file a public frauds lawsuit is widely distributed throughout society, and where the sorting out of fact from falsehood cannot be captured or become concentrated. And these suits must achieve rapid-due-diligence, so the bad guys cannot achieve thru delay what they couldn’t get past a jury.
Right now, as the Bragg trial in NYC shows, we only have a “technicality violation” as a way to keep candidates honest. That doesn’t telegraph clearly where the electorate’s right to a trustworthy infospace ends and candidate privacy begins. We have some work to do — especially if we want to never become like Russia where the most-determined, unethical liar rises to power and remains there through media domination.
Sh**, and show. If we ever do come back to sanity, and I’m not convinced we will, this ‘trial’ will be the evidence presented that we had a party (that would be the DNC) that was so corrupt and awful, very generationally, that we did not, in fact, defeat Feudalism in the Middle Ages. Those mother effers were still here the whole time, and because they are devoid of ethics or compassion, they just waited for their moments, and seized them, at ALL of our expense. Washington needs to be bleached from top to bottom, and given that Trump came along and f***** up all of their machinations, is all I need to know.
Straight. Red. Ticket. In November. Period. And I am an unaffiliated voter. Pay attention to this, because so many of us are saying it: blue is now only for the absurdly uninformed or the straight up insane. Stop pretending that you are voting for JFK, he is dead, and so is everything that brief moment in time represented. Do you want to survive, or not? Do you really believe in equality and peace for all? Then get out of your privileged bubbles and show us.
You said, “Stop pretending that you are voting for JFK, he is dead, and so is everything that brief moment in time represented.”
But they can’t. They can not stop pretending, or living in the past. I said earlier on this thread, that most Democrats are Existential Democrats. They were Democrats before they ever made any reasoned analysis of their party affiliation. Something bad has to happen to them, or they can not change. Think of Democrats like Alcoholics. Nobody sets out to become an alcoholic – they just wake up one day, and blam! They are now alcoholics. They did not “reason” their way into alcoholism. They may have “excused” themselves into it, blaming others for whatever, to provide an excuse to hit the bottle. But becoming an alcoholic was not a conscious choice.
The same with most Democrats. The problem is, just like for alcoholics, they are going to have to make a conscious decision to break away from their delusions. However, there is no “I wound up sleeping in puke in an alleyway” moment for Democrats. There is no moment of clarity for them, and they will even support butchering children if the Party tells them to support that. As long as they have food on their table, a safe house to live in, and money, there is no impetus for them to wake up. They are the Eloi, and life is good for them, until it isn’t.
@Floyd
‘most Democrats are Existential Democrats’
Yup. It is mind boggling. Really, in 2024, that is legitimately baffling. The sheer lack of independent thought. Sheesh.
I wonder what George does with his time. He started typing at around 7am and has consistently been typing up till approx 1 pm. All EST. In that time I walked 3 miles at the mall and talked to 3 different ladies who I know or worked with, at the same mall. Also made 2 trips to the grocery store both before and after the mall since we have an appointed time to walk. Filled my car with gas, and filled extra gas cans for my wife’s John Deer Lawn Tractor (she mows about 5-6 acres) and also had lunch and George is still typing. Maybe he needs some other entertainment. I suggest DARK MATTER ON Apple+. It concerns one man’s different versions over parallel universes. Sound familiar?
@GEB,
Perhaps I’m on vacation, have extra time or I’m simply making this an activity I chose to engage in.
The attempt by the defense calling the jury not to send Trump to prison was highly inappropriate. Judge Merchan had to instruct the jury to disregard the comment because he’s the only one who can decides if he goes to jail.
That looked like a move out of desperation or a dirty attempt to inappropriately influence the jury.
Perhaps you have no life.
Whatdaya bet Trump doesn’t pay his lawyers…..again. But if you Trump supporters just send him more money………
Jonathan: The other thing missing from your column is Allen Weisselberg. The headline in the NY Times today says it all: “The Star Witness Who Never Testified–Donald Trump’s lawyers are expected to highlight the absence of Allen Weisselberg…but he is in jail, serving time for perjury”.
AW was an important “missing witness” at the trial. He was mentioned frequently by other witnesses–like Michael Cohen and David Pecker. Neither the prosecution nor the defense called AW to testify. Why? AW lied in the NY tax fraud case two years ago and that got him his first stint at Rykers. Weisselberg also lied in the AG James civil fraud case and he was forced to plead guilty to perjury–that landed him back in Rykers. So AW was useless to both the prosecution and the defense in this case
But at this very moment Todd Blanche is probably arguing before the jury that AW is the real villain in the case. That AW was solely responsible for the payments to Stormy Daniels and the reimbursements to Cohen…and he did that without any input or approval from DJT. We know that is not true because AW never made a payment to anyone without the approval of the boss. But Blanche will ask Justice Merchan for a “missing witness” instruction, i.e., that the jury can draw an adverse inference from the failure of the prosecution to call AW to testify. That will fail because Blanche could have called AW as a witness and he didn’t for the same reasons the prosecution did not call AW–that he would lie again!
Books can be written on how much Turley does not want to tell his Trump cultists. It’s easier to write what they want to read, then telling them something they don’t want to hear or read.
Do you have an argument ?
Regardless, this is a stupid claim.
I am here telling you things you do not want to hear – it is not at all hard.
YUou are saying things others do nto want to hear – also not hard.
The only difference is that your arguments are either false or fallacious and mine are valid.
The legal burden to call Weiselberg rests with the prosecution. There is no obligation for the defense to call a witness and you are NOT allowed to draw an inferance fromt he fact that the defenadant did not.
YOu ARE legally allowed to draw an inference from the fact that the prosecution did NOT call a witness that could have confirmed their case.
BTW Bragg had the power to FORCE Weiselberg to testify – he could have granted him immunity.
He did not.
The missing witness is a flaw in the prosecutions case.
While Juries like to hear people DENY what the prosecution claims – the defense is NOT obligated to put on witnesses to disprove anything.
The prosecution is however obligated to prove their case.
The prosecution did not even come close.
Trump made Turley’s contract with FOX all but assured, by bring up Turley’s name on a Trump rant this morning. Not so good for Turley’s reputation, but great for Turley’s bank account.
Is that what is called an ad hominem argument?
Turley himself has turned his blog into a joke, I’m just playing along.
It’s working great cause you don’t have to play too hard to be the joke you are!
I’m just playing along.
No one could ever make the mistake of thinking you had the intellect to engage in serious debate.
FW – your the joke.
Do you have an argument ?
Do you have anything to post besides ad hominem ?
Complain about a few openly political addresses which are not illegal but ignore hundreds of preacher preaching almost daily about how Trump is a messiah and democrats demons which should revoke their tax exempt status.
The graduates are smart enough, which i assume you were in the past, capable of independent thinking.
The people in the pews have little choice, don’t they? Fearing shunning and the flames of hell is a bit more concerning than sitting in an uncomfortable chair for an hour or so.
I hope to see.MAGA leaders and their defenders appear before some form of House Un-American Activities Committee in 2025. If I had to guess you supported routing communists but not buffoons like Der Trump.
^^ Full insanity, panic mode, and derangement on display above ^^
Thank you for confirming that Democrats are the very same immoral and unethical threat tot he country today that some REpublicans were in the 50’s.
HUAC and Senator MacCarthy were a stain on this country.
Those of you on the left who seem to wish to resurrect the same putrid tactics today are WORSE – you have the benefit of hindsight and yet you go charging ahead anyway.
Im not an attorney unlike all of the
paid DNC TrollsAnonymous sock puppets on here, so it would be helpful if some of the real attorneys on here would comment on the following observation by attorney Andrew C. McCarthy at the “National Review”:Merchan and Bragg Fashion a Vague Fraud Instruction to Convict Trump
There, the following is offered to define the central concept of intent to defraud. Unless I am missing something, I don’t see any indication of an objection by the defense to this language:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/merchan-and-bragg-fashion-a-vague-fraud-instruction-to-convict-trump/
From the fraud instructions to convict Trump document:
In order to prove an intent to defraud, the People need not prove that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud any particular person or entity. A general intent to defraud any person or entity — including the government or the voting public — suffices.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24688904/2024-05-21-joint-falsifying-business-records-charge-request.pdf
Given the jury is comprised of New Yorkers who vote Democrat, it seeks likely they will connect “voting public” to Trump’s claims of rigged 2020 election, and thus convict him of fraud. Perhaps OldmanfromKS, Floyd, Daniel, Lin, et al can elaborate further on Andrew McCarthy’s analysis
The way that the law is written, the instruction is probably valid, and generic. Not having ever practised in NY, it may even be the “Model” Instruction. I GUESS the Defence Team had little or no choice but to accept it. In light of everything else that is wrong with this trial, that is probably just a minor point.
I don’t know about this aspect of the charge. What I find much more troubling is the idea that the jury can aggregate less than unanimous — even les than majority — votes on each of a number of different alleged other crimes to get to a unanimous vote on an other crime in general.
Yeah to me that sounds like a violation of 14A’s Due Process Clause.
I would be surprised if a Model Instruction included the phrase “voting public.” Every politician in the country could be charged with intent to deceive “the voting public”.
Thanks to all the lawyers who commented. I did not realize McCarthy’s piece was paywalled. I can access it for free on my iPad using Brave so here is his column and hence his logic
For this proposition, a footnote is dropped citing a 2007 decision by the state’s top court in People v. Dallas, which held that the statutory element of intent to defraud “does not require an intent to defraud any particular person: a general intent to defraud any person suffices.” That is all well and good; many fraud schemes try to hook people generally without targeting any specific person. But implicit in that is that fraud, as originally understood, is a deceptive scheme to deprive people of money or tangible property — concrete assets.
As I detailed a year ago when the Supreme Court threw out two federal political-corruption convictions of cronies of former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, a serious problem arises when politicians — generally, progressive politicians — attempt to stretch the concept of fraud in order to impose their vision of good governance. They do this by transmogrifying the concrete-property objective of fraudsters into a vague intangible interest in honesty. This can get so vague that, in essence, prosecutors begin indicting (pardon the tautology) deceptive schemes to be deceptive — i.e., cases in which no one was actually bilked out of anything concrete, or even targeted to be so bilked, but the fraud is said to be some artifice that produced a result the prosecutor doesn’t like, such as the “wrong” candidate winning an election
Thus does the footnote supporting the proposed fraud instruction elaborate that “in the electoral context,” New York’s highest court has “recognized that the concept of fraud can encompass any deliberate deception (to be committed upon the electorate),” or any “corrupt act to prevent a free and open election.”
This is way too broad. There still has to be fraud — meaning the design to steal something in which people have a concrete interest. Otherwise, any untrue statement a candidate makes — for example, President Biden’s repeated claim that inflation was 9 percent when he took office (as he knows, it was 1.4 percent) — could be a prosecutable fraud (i.e., “a deliberate deception . . . committed on the electorate”).
How Merchan Enabled Prosecutors’ Effort to Convict Trump Based on Improper Evidence
Undercover Prosecutor Merchan Helps Bragg Lawlessly Stress Cohen’s Guilty Plea
If it is true that the Trump defense did not object to this proposed instruction, I’d find that mind-boggling. A jury so charged could reasonably find that Trump and his alleged accomplices (Michael Cohen and David Pecker) had an intent to defraud when they entered non-disclosure agreements with Playboy model Karen McDougal and porn star Stormy Daniels — especially the latter, since it is on the Stormy NDA that the 34 felony counts of fraudulent business-records falsification stem.
That would be absurd because NDAs are legal.
An intent to defraud cannot be derived from the performance of a legal act, even if that legal act has the effect of denying the electorate information. There is no property right vested in the “voting public” to have all conceivable information. At most, the “voting public” — whatever that vague formulation includes — is entitled to information that a political candidate must disclose by law. There is not a shred of evidence in the case that Trump was required by law to tell the voters he had (or is claimed to have had) extramarital affairs.
In construing the concept of fraud from its common-law origins, Justice Clarence Thomas explained in one of the aforementioned Cuomo crony cases, Ciminelli v. United States, that the Supreme Court has “consistently understood the ‘money or property’ requirement [in federal fraud statutes] to limit the ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ element because the ‘common understanding’ of the words ‘to defraud’ when the statute was enacted referred ‘to wronging one in his property rights.’” It is simply not the purpose of fraud statutes to empower prosecutors, in the absence of clear — meaning non-vague — statutory direction, to impose their views on election integrity.
There can be no intent to defraud unless there is illegal conduct — i.e., a scheme to act in a manner that deprives people of a property right they actually have been given by a clear statutory provision. This is why Alvin Bragg, though he is a state prosecutor with no authority to enforce federal law, has tried to manufacture a federal campaign-finance felony against Trump: He knows he needs to show that the suppression of politically damaging information was somehow illegal because NDAs are not illegal per se — they are, in fact, common in legal settlements.
The proposed jury instruction would encourage the jury to convict Trump in the absence of proof that he did anything illegal, on Bragg’s vague theory that Trump duped the “voting public” by not publicly confessing to claims that he’d engaged in extramarital sex.
“it may even be the “Model” Instruction. ”
That is highly unlikely. Fraud has a very specific legal meaning that is far removed from this instruction.
Itr is absolutely critical that a jury instration does not accidentally or deliberately encompass legal as well as illegal conduct into a crime.
But you are correct – it will take months and hundreds of thousands of pages to cover the massive legal errors in this case.
It will be very hard to decide what errors are most important.
Did you read the footnotes to the document you linked to?
People v. Dallas, 46 A.D.3d 489, 491 (Ist Dep’t 2007) (“The law is clear that the statutory element of intent to defraud does not require an intent to defraud any particular person: a general intent to defraud any person suffices … “): People v. Lang. 36 N.Y .2d 366, 371 (1975) (in the electoral context, the Court of Appeals has recognized that the concept of fraud can encompass any ”deliberate deception (to be committed upon the electorate or any corrupt act to prevent a free and open election)”.
A 1924 case, People v. Anderson makes it abundantly clear that this is true. https://casetext.com/case/people-v-anderson-172#p75
From People v. Anderson:
JURY INSTRUCTION:
“Remember, gentlemen, what I said a while ago, that the effect of these changes, the effect of these alterations, is only important as it may bear on the question of the motive with which the changes were made, and the intent of the defendant in having these changes made; but if there was no result, if there was no damage done, if there was no fraud consummated, if there was no actual wrong perpetrated upon any one, but nevertheless the defendant made the entries intended [ sic] thereby to defraud some one — if he intended by making these changes to defraud some one, or some corporation, — and `corporation’ includes the State and the Federal government, — then he committed the crime of forgery in the third degree under the first count in the indictment.”
APPROVAL BY NY COURTS:
“The instruction was unequivocal that under the first count of the indictment, an intent to defraud was essential, but that it was not necessary to prove an intent to defraud any particular person or corporation; that an intent to defraud any person or corporation, including the State or Federal governments, would constitute the crime.
The wording of the Penal Law itself evidences the correctness of this rule that a general intent to defraud any person suffices to constitute the crime charged.”
Does Andrew McCarthy offer any case law to suggest that this jury instruction is incorrect?
BugAnon – if we assume that the booking of the payments to Cohen were deceptive, who or what was the person or entity that Trump contemplated thereby deceiving? These internal records were not published or filed or given to anyone outside the organization. Is Trump supposed to be deceiving himself?
Aparantly you did not read MacCarthy – Yes, he offers cases.
I would note the NY cases that YOU are citing are OBVIOUS constitutional error.
As MacCarthy notes – as the cases YOU cite apply – Joe Biden is guilty of felony election interference for falsely claiming that inflation was 9% when you took office.
If the NY “opining” cited can not distinguish between conduct that is a crime and conduct that is not – it is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE or UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BROAD.
I would note that Joe Biden ACTUALLY lied to the public when he claimed inflation was 9%.
Nothing in Bragg’s case has Trump lying to win an election – even though political candidates do that all the time.
Bragg’s claim is that Trump prevented the disclosure of information that may or may not be true.
That is not even close to as serious as actually lying.
There is no Fraud here – because Hiding things falls short of deception, and deception falls short of Fraud.
And you really know that a court has gone off the rails – when centuries old legal doctrines that Fraud is limited to tangible property have to be raised.
Dear Mt. Turley, I believe I can answer the question raised by GEB regarding which apple cart Mr. Trump tipped over when he was elected: It was Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, herself. She was so self-assured about winning that she laughed and laughed when Mr. Trump became the Republican nominee. She didn’t laugh once the results were in and never conceded to Mr. Trump. So, the Left, well entrenched into the Federal Government at all levels, began setting the scene to disrupt Mr. Trump before he had his inauguration over and the crowds dispersed. This was encouraged by Mrs. Clinton; “Viva la Resistance “as she would state publicly. So, the fake Impeachment strategy did not work. The Democratic machine went to work using their usual method: the Court system. The howling Left -Wing media, is beside themselves with glee at the thought of Mr. Trump being “convicted”. If the results of these trials, go in Mr. Trump’s favor, which I hope they will, the Left-Wing media and their Democratic friends will have to look back on all of their wasted words and hysteria, where they worked to keep a man, whom the people chose, from running (and winning) a public office.
Hopefully RepubliCONs can put together an actual party platform at this year’s convention which has not been done since 2012.
But if you actually committed to paper your plans no sane person would vote. Child labor Yes. Food and Drug laws No. Woman’s vote No. Freedom as long as you select from your list Yes.
Having only won the popular vote once since should indicate to you that
Well, I’m sure you can provide citations and links to current Republican proposals to rescind the 19th Amendment, along with pending bills to revoke each and every food and drug safety regulation and to remove statutory age limitations regarding work.
I will be waiting.
2016 GOP platform. In 2020 Republicans adopted the same platform.
https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf
Blanche is already screwing up. He’s mixing up details of Pecker’s testimony.
Blanche is showing a heavy reliance on convincing the jury that Cohen is a liar. He’s not mentioning the documents a whole lot. It’s not looking very promising.
Blanche has a difficult job – trying to close against a prosecution that is not for a crime, and not even clear what is being charge.
That is a failure of the court,